Syria: This Is How Domestic Policy Influences Foreign Policy

Syria: This Is How Domestic Policy Influences Foreign Policy

Legendary foreign correspondent Robert Fisk gave an informed account from the ground on the Syrian (likely non) gas attack. You can read his account via the UK Independent here. It is a good thorough read, written by a man familiar with Syria, it’s people, and it’s leaders.

I have read many critiques of those of us, like Fisk, who do not believe Assad used chlorine gas upon the people of Douma. Most of the reasons given by critics show that they do not understand the region, and are either Russo-phobic (the Left) or have a blind trust in the American State Department (the Neo-con right). Conservatives on the right are a confusing bunch to me. I feel a close kinship to them in many ways. But there is no explaining their complete mistrust of the U.S. government on domestic policy and their blind trust of it in international affairs. If the U.S. government doesn’t do what is right by its own people, why would you assume that they would do what is right anywhere else in the world? But I digress.

For those of you that may not know, I want to explain something to you in very clear and irrefutable terms. We are backing radical Muslim jihadists in Syria. No, really, the “moderate rebels” in Douma that claimed that there was a gas attack there, are a part of a group that calls itself the “Jaish al-Islam” (Army of Islam).

No, we are not fighting ISIS in Syria, we’re helping them. When those same fighters cross an imaginary line in the sand and enter Iraq, we call them ISIS. U.S. weapons are often found among ISIS fighters in Iraq because they were carried from Syria to Iraq by these so-called moderate rebels. It is schizophrenic. But I am going to try to explain in brief below why we knowingly maintain this schizophrenia.

And, no we are not helping Christians there, we are ensuring their annihilation. Assad, as bad as he is, is himself a minority in his own country. He is an Alewite, and is aligned with the Shi’as in Syria, who are themselves a minority. Most of the Sunni majority there are non-violent and live in peace with the minority populations (Shi’a, Alewite, Christian, Yazidi, Kurds, etc). But among the Sunnis are Wahabists, like Osama Bin Laden was when he was alive. These are the radicals that kill, rape, and maim in the name of Islam. The so-called moderate rebels in Syria are Wahabists that are financially backed by Saudi Arabia. They are of the, “convert or die brand”, and we are aiding them in their crimes against minority populations in Syria, among whom our Christian brothers and sisters are a part.

What are we doing in Syria? Be skeptical here and do your own research. What we are doing is helping the Saudis (Sunni Islam) gain control in the Middle East against the Iranians (Shi’a Islam). The Saudis are aligned with us, and will only sell oil in U.S. dollars. This is called the petro-dollar system. Countries around the world must exchange their currencies for dollars before they can trade them for oil. And we can’t have oil countries like Iraq, Libya, Egypt, and Syria selling oil in something other than dollars. All of these nations were either Shi’a controlled or secular Sunni dominated until we arrived in 2003. They were friendly to Iran, which is the major Shi’a power in the Middle East, and consequently, Saudi Arabia’s primary rival for regional dominance. Why is it important to us that Saudi Arabia gain control in these nations so that the world will continue to have no choice but to trade commodities in U.S. dollars only?

Remember back in 2009-2012 when we printed 4.5 trillion dollars out of thin air in order to keep us from slipping into economic oblivion? Why didn’t this massive influx of fresh cash cause massive inflation and destroy the value of our currency? Because the world needs dollars to do business, and most of the new currency was soaked up by foreign banks who needed them to buy oil. But what would happen if the countries of the world began to trade their currencies directly (or gold, or another currency) for oil? All the dollars that are sitting piled in banks all over the world would no longer be needed there, and they would come crashing back to our shores. The U.S. dollar would plummet in value.  We’d be stuck with 21 trillion dollars in debt, and a massively devalued currency to use to pay it off. The inflation that would occur would make 21 trillion feel like 40 trillion in an instant. We also could no longer be able to run deficits because we would not be able to print money to cover those deficits without immediately feeling the consequences, if the world stopped using the petro-dollar. Have you ever asked, “why, if we run a deficit, can government checks get cashed?” It is because we monetize that debt… we print it up and send it out by selling debt backed securities like bonds and treasuries. The interest on the debt in the scenario I describe would equal our GDP overnight. We’ve painted ourselves into a corner. We will do anything to keep the status quo as the reserve currency of the world because a change in the world monetary regime would cause a multi-decade depression, and usher in severe austerity in the U.S.. Here’s the kicker. Our whole Middle Eastern foreign policy is predicated on our need to maintain the world reserve currency status. That’s why we side with Saudi Arabia. That’s why in Yemen, people… children, are dying of Cholera because the Saudis, with our help, have bombed them into the stone age. Where is that in the news?

Saddam Hussein, a Baathist secular dictator started selling oil in currencies other than dollars. He now sleeps with the fishes. Iraq is in shambles. In Libya, Gaddafi did the same thing, moved to non-dollar oil sales. He’s dead and Libya is a mess with no one really in control. The whole Arab Spring that we instigated and supported in 2012 was merely either the toppling of Shi’a controlled countries or the strengthening of Sunni (Saudi) control in countries across the Middle East. In Egypt we saw the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood, that were, like the Jaish al-Islam in Syria, Saudi (Sunni) controlled, and Wahabist to the core. Coptic Christians were, and still are, being slaughtered by them and their ilk. This is all linked to reserve currency and oil sales. No other reason can be given that would make the United States fight ISIS in Iraq and fund ISIS in Syria. Because the day we are not the reserve currency the party is over. We could not, at that point, continue to live our debt fueled free spending lifestyle. Like it or not, our profligate spending has spilled over into profligate warfare. This is how domestic policy influences foreign policy.

U.S. Christians should begin to systematically eliminate their debts and invest in precious metals, land, and other physical assets. The party is going to end. Our reserve currency status is going to cease, my guess, within the next decade. There is a lot going on around the world, especially in the East, meant to extricate eastern countries from being under our financial thumb. And America has been foolish enough to spend more than it has brought in for decades, placing itself in a precarious position that will eventually over come it. I would, if I were you, begin to personally build networks of Christian friends that are committed to helping one another in the future. Erecting things like homeschool networks, using orthodox Christian businesses where you can, and gaining real world skills like gardening, animal husbandry, carpentry, and small motor repair. And more than anything, building small intimate communities of disciples (churches) that truly care for one another and maintain the faith once delivered to the saints. Finally, we should be rebuilding the types of churches that created networks of care for the legitimate poor (widows, orphans, and refugees) as the Church in Judea and the Greek speaking churches established by the Apostle Paul did, when they enrolled widows (Acts 6; 1 Tim 5) and created the office of deacon (1 Tim 3) to carry out that care. There is a time coming in the U.S. where the church will be needed as a house of prayer and a house of care for the legitimate poor.

Perhaps I’m wrong and none of what I said will come to pass in your lifetime. I hope so. But Christians should act on my prescriptions regardless. We should not be indebted to and entangled in the World’s system. We are a separate Kingdom with a whole different moral code, and a completely different set of ethics. We certainly should not be encouraging blood shed in foreign lands to prop up our currency that will come at the expense of our brothers and sisters in Christ. There are worse things than poverty.

 

The prudent sees danger and hides himself, but the simple go on and suffer for it.

Proverbs 22:3 ~

 

Blessings

EL

Advertisements
What Happened To Christianity in the Middle East?

What Happened To Christianity in the Middle East?

Bombing Syria

In our recent rush to prove to the world that we are still running the show, the U.S. launched over one hundred cruise missiles on to three basically empty military establishments in Syria. Supposedly Bashar Al Assad used chemical weapons against the last hold outs of a failed western inspired coup. Though no real evidence has been produced to show the Syrian government used chemical weapons, nor did Bashar Al Assad have any real motive to use them. After all, he has for all intents and purposes won the civil war there, and just last week President Trump let us all know in a tweet (which is still strange to me) that we were pulling our military out of the country. As the bombs reigned down upon Syria Friday night, Neo-conservative Christians in America threw out many reasons for the military action. One in particular really bugs me, and it goes like this, “We have a responsibility to protect ancient Christian civilizations in the Middle East, therefore, Bashar Al Assad has to go.”

Before 2003 when America re-entered Iraq to spread freedom, Christian communities generally enjoyed peace with their Muslim neighbors in places like Syria and Iraq. Secular Shia governments, while not being “friendly” to Christians, nevertheless allowed Christians to live in peace. This was obviously not a perfect scenario for Christians. Of course they have under went injustice and persecution at the hands of many of their majority Muslim neighbors. I’m not trying to paint the situation to be like it is here in America. But Syria and Iraq are not America, so using ourselves as a measuring stick of such things is foolish. But what I want to discuss is, “what changed after 2003?”

Around 2003, with our arrival in Iraq, the American government started using a phrase with its citizens. The Bush administration would say often “that we were fighting them over there, so we won’t have to fight them over here.” Now I dispute that we would have ever really have had to fight them over here. Normal law enforcement practices and vigilance by citizens would protect the homeland. I’m not saying we would not have had “lone wolf” attacks. We obviously have had them, and we would have had them, even without the Iraq War. But the real truth in the statement is found in the first part, “that we were fighting them over there.” It was policy for us to use Iraq as a magnet to draw in Islamist fighters from all over the region. In trying to defeat Al Qaeda, we created a monster, ISIS. ISIS are Sunni radicals of the worst sort. They make up the bulk of the enemy forces we fought in Iraq, and in a strange twist, they also make up the bulk of the forces that we support in Syria. Moderate Rebels in Syria are ISIS fighters in Iraq. That’s the truth, weird as it sounds. What does all this have to do with the decimation of ancient Christian communities in the Middle East? Everything.

As a result of our using Iraq as a magnet for Sunni radicals so we could “fight them over there”, those same Sunni radicals, who are much less apt to live peacefully with infidels than their moderate Shia neighbors, slaughtered Christians, burned their villages, and took their daughters as sexual slaves. So when I hear a U.S. Christian say that we had to bomb Assad to save “ancient Christian civilizations”, I know that the only source of information they have about that region and our actions there, come from sound bytes and news crawlers that scroll across the bottom of their television screens. Bashar Al Assad is a bad guy, but the Sunni radicals moderate rebels that he is fighting against are way worse for Christians in that region. The cruise missiles we sent last night will only serve to help our enemies in that region, and will only hurt the few Christians that are left there. They will produce the exact opposite effect that many well meaning yet ignorant (mostly evangelical) Christians in America desire for their brothers and sisters there. Assad doesn’t love Christians, but the Sunni radicals he is fighting against will exterminate them if they gain power. And that is the reason that many of us are so skeptical that Assad was behind the chemical weapons attack there. For Sunni radicals, the end justifies the means. Sixty sunni hold outs murdered martyred for Allah will all inherit paradise. If their deaths can be used to further the cause of creating an Islamic State in the Levant…. well that is a bridge that those people will cross without hesitation. For Assad however, it was the only thing that would all but guarantee that Europe and America would re-engage on the ground there. So I ask, who really had the motivation to use chemical weapons in Syria? It was not Assad. But who really benefits if Assad gets pinned with a chemical weapons treaty violation? One thing is for sure, not ancient Christian civilizations in Syria.

Iowa Caucus’: What Did We Learn?

Iowa Caucus’: What Did We Learn?

From a political perspective, we learned a lot. First, we learned that all this so-called anti-establishment sentiment in the Republican party is a lot of bluster. Yes, Cruz won, but, as Carson and the gang fade, Cruz will likely not be the beneficiary of their exit, Rubio will. Rubio was the big winner last night for the Republicans. All the undecided, and I mean ALL the undecided, broke for him. He was in the low to mid-teens across all the polls, and yet in the end almost trumped the Donald. That is very bad news for the anti-establishment tea partiers. Rubio was the second tier establishment pick after Bush. Bush had more money, name recognition, and was from the dynastic family. So when Rubio said last night that he was told he needed to, “wait his turn”, the belt-way establishment that were all lined up behind Bush were who he was talking about. Look for that guy to sky rocket. Look for all the money to flow to him. Also look for Bush to pull out pretty soon too. If he goes single digits in New Hampshire, he’ll likely concede and endorse Marco in his concession speech that evening. Hucksters 2% will go to Rubio as well. Huck despises Cruz according to the political pundits, so he’ll likely do what he can to stop the Texas Senator he considers to be a grandstander. Carson’s people I think will go Rubio as well. Carson is not an articulate man. His supporters are not ideologues, their integrity people. Ted looks pretty greasy to them. He started running for president before he even moved into his senatorial office. Spatula Hands (Kasich), the Hugger (Christie), Gilmore (I know… who?), are all establishment guys. Their folks will migrate to Rubio as well. The wild card is The Donald. Strange that a progressive democrat holds the key to the Republican nomination, but such is the condition of the Grand Ole Party. Rubio’s violent rhetoric and Bible thumping will increase if I were a betting man. By the time we get to South Carolina and the southern states he’ll be “making the sand glow” too. So he’ll split Trump’s people, and I think that will be enough to put Ted down.

But what about Rand, what about Rand, Evangelical Libertarian!? Are you joining FOX and not mentioning him as a viable candidate? No, he’s the only guy on either of the two tickets for whom I could even consider casting my vote. He’s articulate, honest, restrained, pro-life and Constitutional. I don’t agree with him on every point, but he is miles, leagues, galaxies better than everyone else. For that reason, he won’t win. And it will be evangelical Christians that will see that the Republic falls into the wrong hands. Evangelicals have forgotten what it is to be any of the things I just listed about Dr. Paul. So has Ted Cruz. He is for “no fly zones” in other sovereign nations. Did you hear that? Enforcing no-fly zones in someone else’s sky without their permission. He is for carpet bombing entire countries, which means he is comfortable ordering the death of innocent women and children. He is for collecting all the data he can through intelligence agencies on American citizens. Edward Snowden is a traitor in his mind for warning American citizens that their government was doing some very unconstitutional, immoral, and unethical things to them. Of course in 2013, Cruz liked him. But that’s for another article. Henry Kissinger, one of the worst men in modern history in my humble opinion, got an open audience with Mr. Cruz just the other day. Kissinger never saw an intervention he didn’t like. He never saw a war he wasn’t willing to send your sons (and now daughters regrettably) to die in. These are Mr. Cruz’s influences? They sound eerily similar to George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama’s influences as well. Cruz is not an anti-establishment candidate. Like Rubio, he will be more, probably much more, of the same.

Everybody except for Rand wants to cure the American headache with a hammer. ISIS is a serious problem, but one we created with military adventurism and idealistic silliness about spreading democracy with the sword. We dropped tons of explosives on Iraq. Killed hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, and all those people had relatives and friends. They don’t hate us because we are free. They hate us because we have bombed them and killed their friends and neighbors. We have decimated their country. We have created the moral climate for ISIS to turn ethnic muslims into radical ones, all over the world. Whoever is elected on either side of the aisle, Paul excepted, will only make the problem bigger, us poorer, and further diminish our moral authority. It is going to take a full fledge financial crash to stop our imperial government from continuing the invasions. That’s what happened to Rome – imperial over-reach. It saddens me that evangelical Christians could stand behind these positions, which are neither Christian nor conservative.

It used to be that Christians understood the nature of man and the limited extent to which government power could be used to affect it. We used to understand how leaving power in the hands of the individual muted it, and kept it from amassing in the wrong places. It is as if we have forgotten that “all governments are inherently evil”, inhabited by sinful men,  and that power attracts the worst sort of people. Acton said it best, “power corrupts”. There is only one candidate that wants to leave power in the hands of the States and the people there of. Only one who is calling for restraint and recognizes the limits of the governments ability to affect real change. Only one who wants to abide by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Only one calling for sound money. Christians also often forget that “unequal weights are an abomination” (Deut 25, Prov 20). Only one man asking you to give him power so he can keep it from being used. His name is Rand Paul. And we will never elect him. Because we have become the people of Israel in I Samuel 8. We want a king. And God is about to give us one. A Saul.

Rand Paul The Only Non-Dystopian Candidate

Rand Paul The Only Non-Dystopian Candidate

Have you seen or read The Giver? The people don’t see color. Everyone is all the same. The have no choices. Bernie Sanders is The Giver. He seeks to limit choice. To make everyone the same. He believes that he has the wisdom to decide for you.

On that note, have you seen or read Divergent? Bernie Sanders is an Erudite. He believes he knows what is best what for you. What you should do. How you should live. How much things should cost etc, etc.

How about the Hunger Games? He is part of the Capitol. He believes that all monies and goods should be distributed through Washington DC. The Capitol decides who gets grants for education, farm subsidies, taxation levels etc. Everything the people make and produce goes there and the scraps are divided up among those who please and entertain the Capitol.

Bernie is not the only dystopian bad guy running this election season. Almost all of them fit the mold one way or another. I am just surprised that a group of people who have grown up reading dystopian novels and watching dystopian movies have not learned the moral lessons contained in them.

There is only one real candidate that is trying to end our 1984 like perpetual wars. Only one candidate trying end our 1984 like “Big Brother” domestic spying. Only one candidate committed to ending our massive over spending and debt problem. Only one candidate trying to end the “Pigs” (see Animal Farm) ability to change the rules and live differently from the other animals (citizens) on the farm. Only one candidate that has a consistent close to 100% Constitutional rating. Only one candidate that believes you are the answer to what ails this nation. Who wants plans by the many across this great land not plans by the few in Washington. One. There is no refuting that. There is only one non-dystopian candidate. So if you are a Millennial, Gen X’er or Boomer, vote for the Hero of the books. The one trying to take down the Capitol. The one trying to bring peace. The one trying to give liberty back to the people. That is Rand Paul and only Rand Paul.

The Israel of God and American Foreign Policy

The Israel of God and American Foreign Policy

Social media has been ablaze over the last couple of days regarding Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to the U.S. Congress. I’m not going to address the content of his speech. To be honest, I didn’t listen to it or read the transcripts. I’ve glanced through a few articles, but even those I didn’t read with an eye of criticism. I was just taking in information. I’ll let political pundits fight over whether we are too hawkish or too dovish towards Iran. I have an opinion, but I’ll save it for another day. I want to address something that concerns me much more than momentary arguments over foreign policy. I would like to address Christians, specifically from the Bible, on two separate, but inter-connected questions. The first question I would like to attempt to answer is whether or not the current nation state known as Israel today is “the Israel of God”. In other words, is the current geographic nation-state that was established in the early 1950’s the same entity as the Biblical Israel?

The children of Israel, the descendants of the seed of Abraham, were first formed into a nation under Moses. They were given a 3 pronged law. A moral law to govern their behavior, which we call, “The Ten Commandments”.  A ceremonial law to instruct them in religious worship. And a civil law to instruct them in crime, punishment, and civil organization. They, as a people, were bound together in a single covenant with God. He was their God, and they were His people, the sheep of His pasture.** This covenant was preceded by the covenant and promises of Abraham (as referenced above), and Noah. It preceded a further development with David, and finally the coming of Jesus Christ. Jesus’ appearance is the apex of God’s covenant dealings with men, and it fulfilled every aspect of all His covenant promises, so that Paul could affirm to the Church at Corinth that, “all the promises of God find their yes in Him.” (2 Corinthians 1:20) While in the Old Testament, God’s people were tied to physical ceremony, land, and heritage. The New Testament drastically improves and expands the borders of God’s Israel. Jesus comes and proclaims peace to all men, first, to the Jews, but then to the rest of the world as well. And all that believe on Jesus Christ are brought into a better covenant, with better promises. This is an important point. Not a different covenant with different promises, but a better covenant with better promises. Jesus improved upon the Old Covenant, he abolished the national and ethnic distinction that set his Old Covenant people apart as separate and distinct, and expanded the Israel of God to include Gentiles. Israel, according to Scripture is no longer a small geographic state in the middle east, but is now an international empire that will one day rule the entire globe. There are two passages in the New Testament that I would like to point to as evidence that the way I am interpreting the Gospel’s effect on our understanding of Israel is correct. The first has to do with the way Paul interprets the promise given to Abraham concerning the “land”. The second will be Paul discussing the inclusion of Gentiles into the Commonwealth of Israel.

Romans 4:13-18

[13] For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. [14] For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. [15] For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression. [16] That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, [17] as it is written, “I have made you the father of many nations”—in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist. [18] In hope he believed against hope, that he should become the father of many nations, as he had been told, “So shall your offspring be.”

This is a wonderful passage with more than one use for our purposes. First we see the great Gospel promise of inclusion. How would Abraham become a blessing to the whole world? How would the promised hope of salvation be brought to the world of men? Abraham would have a son, not Isaac, a greater than Isaac, Jesus Christ. (Galatians 3:16) But more importantly for our discussion is how Paul interprets the promise of the land. Verse 13 says, “For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith.” Wait. When did God promise Abraham that he would inherit the entire earth? He didn’t. Paul rightly sees that the covenant promise of “the promised land” has been expanded because it was too small to fit with giant nature of the person of Jesus Christ, the King of Kings, and Lord of all Lords. In giving His people the world, that tiny little dot in North Africa between two rivers is also included. So God is not breaking His promise to His people, He is giving them more. They are heirs to the world. This shows an expanded view of territory known as Israel, of which Jesus is King.

Now for the big discussion. One that may be difficult for you to receive at first, but I ask you to read the next passage very carefully. The Israel of God is made up now of both ethnic Jews and ethnic Gentiles… there is no distinction.

Ephesians 2:11-21

[11] Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands—[12] remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. [13] But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. [14] For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility [15] by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, [16] and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. [17] And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. [18] For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. [19] So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, [20] built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, [21] in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord.

This passage is written to a Gentile Church. Paul wants them to clearly understand their place before God in the New Covenant. He starts out by telling them that in the past, or, “at one time” “they had been separated from Christ”. That they had been “alienated from the commonwealth of Israel”. Note that phrase, “the commonwealth of Israel”. It refers to a specific political economy. And that they had been “strangers to the covenants of promise”. But now their relationship with the Father had changed.  And not just with the Father, but with the Father’s people too. The Jews, the commonwealth, covenant people of God, had regulations that separated them from everyone else. But Jesus “himself is our peace, who made us both one and has broken down in His flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that He might create in himself one new man in the place of two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.” Jesus abolishes the civil and ceremonial law aspects of the Old Covenant removing all distinctions between Jew and Gentile. He writes the moral law on our hearts (Jeremiah 31:33), which is the promise of the New Covenant, symbolizing the coming of the Holy Spirit, and the changing of the hearts of men. All men, Jew and Gentile alike. In verse 19 we have the clearest declaration in the New Testament that Gentile believers have been included in the Israel of God. There is no way to mistake Paul’s assertion unless we are just being willfully blind.

 

“So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God”

 

He uses the exact same language that he used in verse 11 to make the connection.

 

“remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel (citizenship) and strangers to the covenants of promise”

 

So we see that the New Testament very clearly teaches us that, God’s promises have been expanded and improved upon. That God’s people will inherit the land that He promised them. But they will receive it when He gives them the world as their inheritance. Secondly, we see in a very clear and unambiguous way as well, that the New Testament teaches that the Gentiles are now included in the Common Wealth of Israel. They have been granted citizenship. All the covenant promises that God has made to His people are now theirs as well. On these two points the Bible is clear. The Church and Israel are the same entity, not because the Church replaced Israel, but because the Gentiles have been included within her. The Church is a part of Israel. She is catholic, which means she is not confined to a single nation, like the Truth was until Jesus came. She is apostolic, which means she was built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, the Jewish apostolic figures, Jesus Christ himself being that chief cornerstone.

I’m writing this because of the misguided opinion of some believers that to not defend modern national Israel is in some way to be disobedient to God. This is to ascribe to modern Israel a divine sanction that is improper. I’m not saying we should not be allies with Israel, I’m just saying it should have nothing to do with her being the Israel of God, because, as I just demonstrated, she is not. She, at the current time, is a socialist, atheist, state that does not even practice the minimum requirements of Old Testament religious life. She is a civil organization of people just like every other modern state. Better than some, worse than others, ordinary, and man-made in every way. U.S. foreign policy shouldn’t be based on a bad theological position.

But, let’s say I’m wrong about everything I have written here. For the sake of argument, let’s assume I am. Should we give Israel money and arms? Should we claim to be her defender and say that without us she will perish? If you believe the modern nation of Israel is the Israel of God, then you should be very opposed to us engaging in that type of relationship. Why? Because God forbids Israel to engage in covenants of defense and not trust in Him alone for their defense.

 

Isaiah 31:1-5

[1] Woe to those who go down to Egypt for help and rely on horses, who trust in chariots because they are many and in horsemen because they are very strong, but do not look to the Holy One of Israel or consult the LORD! [2] And yet he is wise and brings disaster; he does not call back his words, but will arise against the house of the evildoers and against the helpers of those who work iniquity. [3] The Egyptians are man, and not God, and their horses are flesh, and not spirit. When the LORD stretches out his hand, the helper will stumble, and he who is helped will fall, and they will all perish together. [4] For thus the LORD said to me, “As a lion or a young lion growls over his prey, and when a band of shepherds is called out against him he is not terrified by their shouting or daunted at their noise, so the LORD of hosts will come down to fight on Mount Zion and on its hill. [5] Like birds hovering, so the LORD of hosts will protect Jerusalem; he will protect and deliver it; he will spare and rescue it.”

 

I love the Israeli people, and pray that God brings them to see His love for them in the face of Christ Jesus. To them the prophets came, of them the Messiah was born. But that is where their advantage ends. God loves all men, and we should wisely follow His example, seeking peace and pursuing it. This does not mean we cannot justly defend ourselves, or offer defense to the defenseless. But it does mean we would be wise to not ascribe divine attributes to modern Israel. Or, on the other hand, if we do believe Israel to be the divine nation of God, that we not provide money and arms for her defense, tempting her to deny her God, and become the cause of her judgment. Interestingly, both positions should lead us to the same foreign policy philosophy, non-intervention.

 

The Evangelical Libertarian

Why the French Lost North America and Why Washington Eventually Will Too

Why the French Lost North America and Why Washington Eventually Will Too

My kids aren’t in the State Indoctrination Camps, we homeschool. I teach world history to homeschoolers every Friday as part of a local tutorial. I love history and firmly believe that even though history doesn’t repeat, it certainly rhymes. Which brings me to my point. Today I was teaching the future leaders of the free world about The French and Indian War. The book I use as a guide doesn’t give the real reason why the French lost that war, and were driven from the continent. It wasn’t because they were bad soldiers or bad military tacticians. They lost because their leaders were out of touch with reality. Louis XIV was a hard-working, brilliant dictator. Even though he began to sow the seeds of France’s destruction with the construction of Versailles by the blood and wealth of his subjects, nevertheless, he was available and attentive to the state of his country. He may not have cared much about his people, but he at least knew of their suffering.

In contrast, Louis XV was a lazy man. His father did not care for him much. As the leader of France he was hated. He died fairly young, but not until he had squandered most of what his father had built in the New World. When he died of small pox, they covered him in lyme, and chucked him in a hole in the middle of the night. While alive, he was suppose to be leading his people in The French and Indian War. Instead, he was absent, aloof, and uncaring concerning the plight of his people. While William Pitt, the Prime Minister of England, with whom he was at war, was making sure his men had money, weapons, food, and supplies to fight the costly war, Louis was lying in the lap of luxury disconnected from the reality of the day to day existence of his citizenry and soldiers. French soldiers didn’t lose because they were cowards, but because they were cold and hungry. French citizens weren’t hungry because they were lazy, but because they were being legally plundered. The French lost North America in the end because of corrupt and aloof leadership

Does this situation sound familiar? While I am thinking of the broader political class, President Obama is a great modern example of this type of clueless, aloof leadership. Many have called him “Vacationer and Chief”. While our soldiers have shed their blood in unjust foreign wars, he appears regularly to be playing more golf than governing. And when he is governing he is busy catering to lobbyists for green energy, attempting to destroy coal power plants and vetoing oil pipelines knowing full well that in the end these actions will drive up the cost of energy for his citizens. Like Louis XV, he doesn’t really care.. Republican leaders are just as aloof and clueless, just on a whole host of different big business lobby driven issues. Republicans are at war with their own conservative and libertarian base, choosing rather to cozy up to the Wall Street and the Country Club wing of their party. Passing omnibus spending bills, fully funding Amnesty, refusing to audit the Federal Reserve, bailing out “to big to fail” banks and car companies, etc. The political class is aloof and out of touch. While food prices go up and wages go down, they publish phony jobs numbers, knowing full well that the jobs being created are either lower wage, or part time, or both. While companies like Hewlett Packard fire 50,000 employees in order to create reserve cash to buy back their own stocks, driving the stock price up, and amassing huge bonuses for their executives. Congress and the President turn a blind eye to such unethical practices because, of course, this pushes up the stock market and allows them to take credit for a fake “economic recovery” so they can get re-elected and continue plundering the American people. Meanwhile, the rich get richer, misguided youth join Occupy Wall Street. Mandatory Minimum Wage movements gain steam. Tea Parties erupt. Libertarians start having a moment. What do all these things have in common? They are all anti-elite-political class movements. Let’s go back to France and Louis XV for a moment.

What happened after his death? The Enlightenment, “The Bloody Revolution”, and the end of Aristocracy in France. What fills the void when elitist, corrupt leaders lose legitimacy in the eyes of their citizens? Before we answer that, we need to ask, “What causes elitist, corrupt leaders to lose legitimacy?” Economic disruption, brought on by the actions and policies of those leaders usually does the trick. When Marie Antoinette supposedly said, “Let them eat cake”, France was in the middle of a desperate economic disruption caused by the constant wars, taxation, and luxuries enjoyed by the Aristocracy. What fills the void left by elitist, corrupt political leaders? Usually populist movements that claim the noble goal of returning the nation to it’s former glory, and promising never to allow a corrupt elitists political class to rule again. Think of Germany pre-World War II. The Treaty of Versailles had stripped Germany of her former glory. Years of punitive damages inflicted by the victors of World War I stunted Germany’s ability to economically recover. An unjust peace left hundreds of thousands of hungry, unemployed, Germans. This major economic disruption toppled the Weidmar Democracy, and led to the rise of the Nazi Party.

Russia at the turn of the 20th century was in a similar state. Years of aloof, corrupt leadership led to constant foreign wars, high taxation, a virtual caste system that was impossible to break out of, and an extremely prejudicial justice system where the poor simply could not get justice. What filled this gap? A populist movement known as the Bolsheviks came to power through revolution, and every member of the aristocracy that didn’t run was summarily executed. This began 70 plus years of rule by communism, which featured millions of deaths, via starvation, execution, Gulags, etc. Russia today is in the middle of such a movement. What is Vladmir Putin trying to accomplish? He is trying to return Russia to its former glory. This Ukrainian business and the Crimean secession is exactly the type of movement I have been describing. Russia needed a leader. A strong, charismatic figure arises and wins the hearts and imaginations of many Russians. Especially older Russians that remember, with nostalgia, Russia’s former place on the world stage. Russia is currently eyeing their former Baltic states as “economic partners”. But the Baltic nations know this partnership is an “offer they can’t refuse”, to quote Vito Corleone.

The U.S. is now showing signs of this process as well. We’ve had one major economic disruption after another since the 1970’s. All caused by the policies of a corrupt and aloof leadership that promise more than they can deliver and then print more money to cover their spending habits. Because we are the reserve currency holder in the world, we are able to print up a fresh batch of cash and infuse it into our economy. But all we are doing is kicking the can down the road a bit. Debt does not build wealth. The debtor is always a slave to the lender. The piper will be paid. Economic disruption is coming in the near future. With interest rates at zero and quantitative easing not working anymore, what’s the plan this time around? We have painted ourselves into a corner with no way out. These populist movements will gain strength. Eventually, Washington, because of aloof, corrupt leadership will lose it’s legitimacy. It is the way of history. Sure as rain, as we say in the south. What kind of movement will fill the void? This question remains unanswered. I just hope the Libertarian moment, becomes a Libertarian day. Of course, as the Evangelical Libertarian, I know that, “the king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the Lord; he turns it wherever he will.” (Proverbs 21:1) My prayer is that the people of this wonderful land will peacefully return to the God of their fathers, not through government coercion, but because of the great love that He has shown to us in sending His own Son to die in our place. It is only the Gospel that can bring real peace. It must start between God and man. But when internal peace takes hold in the hearts of men, and the Holy Spirit permeates our homes and hearths, national peace will soon follow. That’s a populist movement to get excited about!

We Now Have A Little Something for Everyone

We Now Have A Little Something for Everyone

Looking for good alternative reads on culture, economics, history, and current events. Look no further than The Evangelical Libertarian. From contrarian economic sites like David Stockman’s Contra Corner, Bob Murphy’s blog, and Peter Schiff’s blog, to politics and culture oriented sites like Libertarian Christians.Com, The Imaginative Conservative, Front Porch Republic, and others. We now have something to tickle your Contrarian fancy. Even yours truly, The Evangelical Libertarian joins the fray from time to time with Biblical examinations of current events and economic principles to help give a twist to the brew. Like, Subscribe, set us as your homepage, or do all three.

 

Soli Deo Gloria